If all we are going to do is engage in vague inspirational idealism rather than using realistic boundaries to the discussion I fear the relevance to the subject at hand fades away.

> You don't compete with ANY competitor by trying to do 100% what they do out of the gate.

This idea bleeds into the definition of a monopoly. I can’t just make a mobile operating system like Apple and Google because I won’t have a competitive advantage. I can’t make my own Amazon competitor because their edge is that they deliver more packages than UPS or FedEx. I can’t compete with Google search because the web browser that comes with Android defaults Google on the home page.

Sure, nobody is trying to do 100% of what their competitors do, but I wouldn’t be able to do 5% of what Amazon does even if you handed me billions in seed capital.

▲

andsoitis 6 hours ago | parent [-]

It sounds like you’ve decided it isn’t possible to compete, there’s nothing worth trying. I suppose that’s a fair stance to take and I’m not here to convince you to be more resourceful and strategic.

Meanwhile, lots of people are starting and building successful businesses.

	▲	Grombobulous 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		We can certainly agree that lots of people are starting and building successful businesses. But I would hope we can also agree that there are many business categories where entry into the market is extremely difficult. And hopefully you can agree that, conceptually, monopoly businesses do exist and have existed in the past.